Shared publicly  - 
Ok, since some people continually seem to be confused about the point of higher-resolution screens, I'm doing a small example of why you want it, especially if you're working with lots of text (ie email or source code).

One of these two pictures is a part of a real screenshot from my pixel, using a font that I actually use and find readable on that screen.  Yes, it's a smallish font, but it really is readable, and it's small enough that I see about 50 emails at the same time (it's a crop of my lkml folder in gmail in the "compact" view using chrome, in case people care).

The other one is an approximation of the same kind of setup with a 1080p screen (it's just scaled down using cubic interpolation using gimp: actually redrawing the fonts with a smaller font-size would result in slightly different output, but it's fairly representative).

Remember, this is the good kind of screen some people claim is great. Most laptops actually have a 768p screen, which would just be unreadable.

And you know what? Yes, you can actually read the 1080p version. But compare the two, and ask yourself which one you think causes less eye strain because it's clearer and easier to read. And if you still think that 1080p is "good enough", I can only say that you're either (a) stupid as f*ck or (b) in deep denial.
Svend Nielsen's profile photoNadir Muzaffar's profile photoindrakumar shrestha's profile photoGreg Shenold's profile photo
Actually, I say that the Pixel screen still isn't good enough, based on this graphic.
I keep telling myself I should not want a Pixel, but the build quality and the beautiful display keep calling out to me. Very nice demo. Thanks.
Gaah, the two pictures look like a fairly good comparison in the G+ desktop "side-by-side" view (when you see them both at the same time), but it ends up looking horrible in the G+ image viewer when you take a closer look.

I was hoping the image viewer would just show them in the same size in full-screen and you could switch back-and-forth and see the "same" picture except with different amount of actual information, but that's not how it works.

It looked better when I had the two pictures in a photo viewer and switched back-and-forth between them. Oh well. I guess I might have a few people who still don't get it ;(
I wish the Pixel was a "convertible" so that the screen could fold all the way back and become a tablet. Oh well, pixel 2.0.
I still remember the days I had a 1600x1200 15" CRT. I swear I got more work done then. 
I have a Dell 30" screen that does 2560x1600 and it is so much better that I won't go back. (Got it for $100 at a garage sale!)

You used to be able to get hi Res screens without having to search, but now that the monitors are just repurposed TVs, most of those models are no longer made. When the industry decides to go to 4k TV we will start seeing better screens. (And will have to buy new video cards because next to nothing supports that resolution.) 
Or (c), your run of the mill normal person who onely receives 5 mails pr day ;-D... If even that many..
Linus, you could even say that Earth is actually flat.. I would believe it anyway :D
Actually, I deal with one item at a time, so screen size is not that important. I don't like long lists; emails like that I create filters for so that each ends up in a folder of related items. I get the computer to partially organize my work before I even look at ti.
The display is my number one criterion when choosing a new machine nowadays, but while higher resolution is great I would basically kill for a square display. 
I get so many damned emails a day that only mutt will cope, I need a good terminal emulator :-) 
could really use one of those  pixels at work. my eyes hurt me from all the text....
You need to use alternate color codes for each line.. That'll break up the stress on the eyes :)
+Stefan Egeskov: yeah, the "lots of lines of text" really only help if you have lots of lines to display. For things like source code it is a big deal if you can avoid scrolling back-and-forth and see more of the context at the same time. 

+Vibhav Pant: yes, the G+ visualization ended up being much worse than I expected. The image viewer seems to not ever scale up images, so if you have a big screen to show the two on, the one with smaller pixels just ends up being smaller. And if you have a small enough screen, the higher-resolution one just gets scaled down instead. 

You can kind of approximate the effect I was going for by forcing the smaller picture to be scaled up ("ctrl-+"), but I really hoped that G+ would just show the two pictures with the same aspect ratio at the same full-screen size, so that moving back and forth between them would show the quality difference.

But that's clearly not how the G+ picture viewer works.
I'm sorry... Maybe it is the fact I am seeing this on a mobile phone but the 2 images look exactly the same to me. I hope I don't fall in your stupid as fuck category. I usually always try to get the highest resolution possible on my screens... And for my work I use a dual head setup and I trust your judgement on regards to this.... But for me they are indistinguishable. 
+Linus Torvalds that's how it works on mobile, using my nexus 7 now and G+ scales up the smaller one to the same size as the other. The difference is plain to see when switching between the two.
I use a rotated u2410 ("tallscreen" instead of widescreen) but sadly noone is making laptops that can do that.
Another awesomely diplomatic post. Thank you and keep 'em rolling - I think you will single-handedly get the display industry off its arse.
The Asus Transformer Infinity has a similar pixel density for $500.
I totally agree. Also useful for reading PDF files with the pages side by side and working with spreadsheets.
Yeah debugging large chunks of code is easier if you can see a lot at a time.  At Barclaycard I had to ask Technical Support to re-enable 6 point fonts on the laser printers so I could print mainframe code with 6 pages, line truncated, on one A4 sheet.  Easier to track logic and saves a lot of paper.

Also at CAP Gemini we had no main frame printer access on site for the team acquiring Barclaycard's Merchant data so the same macros came in handy for printing pages properly on available A4 laser printers.
This makes me think of TV comercial ads that "show" you how crisp and clear the image on the TV they're selling looks... on your non-crisp and clear screen.

The fact the left picture has missing pixels on almost every other "P" and the right does not is a major tell they are far from the same but you obviously cannot tell if you're on a low res screen. It's not that hard to understand...
If on a phone... Download both images and view them in the native android viewer. Flip between the two. 
My Ladtop (Dell XPS 15z) and my smartphone (Xperia Z) had the same resolution, I think that my ladtop (every) needs a better resolution.
At work I'm forced to use a 1280x1024 monitor hooked up to my 768p laptop. Even on just a 1080p monitor I'd get sooooooo much more work done.
Wow 50 emails onscreen, that's useful, I hate to scroll and search daily emails, using a small font you should see full websites on-screen, isn't?
When someone lowers their screen resolution from native in order to be the text bigger, i feel the need to confiscate the computer for it's own safety.
I realy don't care about the subject, just love the expretions :)
I miss my old CRT. That baby could do 1600x1200 easily, my video card couldn't do any better to push the screen further. Now I have LCD and my video card can do brilliant resolutions but the monitor can't do anything impressive.
Not a fair comparison at all. A properly formed and scaled font for the lower resolution image would make a HUGE difference.
Not that I disagree with Linus' basic argument that higher resolution screens are a big improvement. That's one thing I really hated about Apple's displays starting around 1997 and continuing up to a couple of years ago... very low resolution for the screen size. It's like they were being specced by a CEO with poor visual acuity who couldn't tell that his computers sucked for folks with better-than-average vision.
what is confusing here is that in your text you never mention 1700p
which is the readable screen on the right
(should it not be 1600p ?)

my guess for all the confusion is
- when people talk about resolution for computer monitors
they do not realise it is in the context of a fixed inch size reference
(23, 24, 27, 30inch)
- most people talk about screen size in pixel without paying attention to the DPI or PPI or ppcm
- different name for the same thing: 1080p,  1080i, 1920x1080, FHD

so in your case I think it would be best to also mention the
diagonal of the screen (inch) and PPI
+Peter da Silva: I tried to do that, but changing the default font size didn't end up doing the right thing for the rest of the desktop.

But for the particular portion I used as an example, it turns out that I can just tell Chrome to scale by 67% in the settings, and that does end up working pretty well. And yes, the text is clearer that way.
ted m
for the low end, I've found 1440x900 (probably only found used orn on ebay these days) is incredibly more productive than 1376x768.
I could always show an even smaller font that would cause eye strain on any screen because, hey, I like to see one hundred emails at a time. No matter what the screen size or resolution, there can always be a font that works well and some that suck. I can print an actual book (remember those) with font, kerning, and line spacing that gives you a headache. Perhaps a better post would be the art of finding the right set up for you. Fonts that anti-alias well at small sizes, or fonts that don't have serifs is a good start. Actually,a non aliased font can be readable at very small sizes. And scaled down using gimp will effect kerning and aliasing, so not as good as a representation as you probably think. Colors and backlight have more to do with the strain anyway as does refresh rate and font quality . Old Crt monitors actually shot beams of electromagnetic energy right at you! Remember those screens everyone used to put in front of their monitors. If your eyes hurt, don't be afraid to zoom in or use a different or bigger font. 
They're both equally blurry in the G+ app on my phone. 
You could just increase the font size and scroll a bit... I don't gave to have higher resolution myself... To each their own...
I used to like high resolution screens and small fonts then my vision start to decrease, so I really don't thinks it's a good idea...
It's like back in olden days i had STD resolution TV and then there were commercials showing how good HD picture is shown in my STD TV. 
I'd love the higher dpi on desktop monitors, but I'm not sure I'd afford it. I want big monitors - 24 inches per monitor at least. It'll take between two and three eons before such hardware are generally available at a decent price.

"It's good enough" is making it increasingly difficult to source a decent display these days :(.  Finding better than 1080p outside of niche puter shops is entirely out of the realm of reality in Canada these days.  I remember when 1080p was first popularized for TV and we (anyone who'd heard of a computer by the late 90's) laughed at the luddites.  *sigh*.  Now seems prices for >1080p are sky rocketing as they're seen by the consuming public as a niche upgrade only useful to graphic designers (and most graphic designers ... unfortunately agree with this sentiment now).
I would also avoid the "old TV terminology" of mentioning "lines of resolution" like "768p".  Whenever possible, I recommend mentioning the full horizontal x vertical resolution such as:

• 640x480
• 800x600
• 1024x768
• 1280x720
• 1280x1024
• 1600x1200
• 1920x1080
• 2560x1600

Plain old lines of resolution were relevant when dealing with an old NTSC video signal, but aren't that relevant in computer graphics or computer screens... especially not modern flat panels.
+Linus Torvalds It's only a fair comparison if you assume that you're trying to pack the same amount of text onscreen. For crap like email, that kind of information density isn't a big deal.

Moving from CRT to LCD was a much bigger difference on eyestrain for me anyway, and it had a much smaller price tag. I just don't see that it's a justifiable expense for the vast majority of users. 
+Chris Harpner resolution is not enough
I can find 5inch screens at 1920x1080

simple rule: more dpi or resolution for the same diagonal inch is better
+zwetan kjukov True, but I was talking about a slightly different point... That being, how to communicate the screen resolution... (irrelevant of DPI).

Depending on what you're wanting to communicate, DPI may be more important, equally important, less important, or not relevant to horizontal and vertical resolution.

In context of what' +Linus Torvalds is talking about, in addition to mentioning both the horizontal and vertical resolutions of the screen, the DPI does become relevant in the context of "what's readable".  But, that was outside the scope of my comment.
I get it, but then I'm on a MBP with a retina display.     
+Linus Torvalds You might want to try the Infinality patches for a better font rendering, that should get you some extra readability even on the Pixel...
+Chris Harpner yep true I should have mentioned that too

yep using 1080p for computer monitor resolutions does not help

but I would still say not everyone use the same inches for their laptop, the same resolution wether you mention 1080p or 1920x1080 is a different game wether you use 13", 15" or 17" etc

so sorry I gonna a bit of an ass, if you really want to compare screen resolution you need to know all 3 parameters: diagonal of the screen, max Width by Height and DPI

only way you can have a good idea of the pixel density
+zwetan kjukov True, but like I said, it depends on what you're wanting to communicate as to which properties of the screen become important.  Sometimes DPI is important and total pixels are not at all.  Sometimes total pixels are important and DPI is not.  It just depends on what you're trying to communicate.
Mike L.
Being one of those "some people":
Thanks for making the screenshots! I see your point pretty clearly now ;)
+Linus Torvalds I must be (a) "stupid as f*ck" or (b) "in denial" then... well, actually I don't even disagree with you per se, but I'm surprised. That language and such a broad generalization... seriously? Over the difference between two "high end niche" screen resolutions, of all things, really? This has to be the pinnacle of what Louis C.K. refers to as "white people problems". Oh and also: I bet my 768p OEM laptop would beat your Pissel any day, I dare you, let's put them in a cage together! :D
Yes! Lets explain to all thise idiots that works in hardware vendors marketing, that we want good screens! That "high end" laptops with 1376x768 were good for 199x but silly in 201x!!! That if they continue with that phones can replace laptops, because phone screens are already better and processors will be better soon.
The only thing stopping me from a Chromebook Pixel is the lack of pointing stick.  If they resolve that issue, I'm in!
If you don't believe until you see it, take this test:

This shows a number of pattern on the screen, especially horizontal stripes on the right.  Go as far back on your screen until you don't see the stripes anymore.  Then it's the right distance for the resolution.  I need to back off nearly 2m from my 24" HD screen, and 4m from my 55" HD screen in the living room - that's fine, it's a living room TV.  But the rest is just pathetic.  Even 4k on a 24" HD screen would not be quite good enough.

People out there who are making monitors, and have no troubles to make a 5" pentile HD device (the current 45° rotated bayer pattern from Samsung is ok, our eyes only focus on green, and have too much chromatic aberation for the other colors), please, do that for larger screens!  My GPU has a teraflops, it should have no troubles dealing with 10 million pixels, this is still more than 1000 flops per pixel and refresh.  Maybe I need more than one cable, but cables are cheap.

Our (geek humans) eyes are eagle eyes.  Our brains are even better than eagle brains, which matters for the post-processing.  And what do you give us?  Screens made for pigs and frogs!

I hoped that Apples rrMBP would trigger a wave of "me-too" good screen laptops, but so far, only the CB Pixel rivals it.  Hey dudes at Samsung: Apple can't patent high resolution (ok, maybe they can, after all, it's the USPTO ;-)!  Just go for it!
Spot on. Resolution is so important. I keep switching between my rrMBP and other systems and it's such a let down to go to screens with < 200ppi.
Totally agree ... coding/working is much more efficient on a good resolution screen. I see you use gmail ... I just hope you like the "new compose experience"? :)
Linus, check back when you are 65....

I am nearsighted, have astigmatism, and am going in for cataract surgery in July. I'm hoping that in August I will be able to fully appreciate the Pixel's screen.
Sure the high-dpi image is much better. The question is, whether I use the resolution to make text smaller (while still legible) or just more beautiful. If I make it smaller, it may hurt after a while, and making it more beautiful is not a reason to buy a new display for me.
Actually I really love CRTs with 100+ Hz and a super smooth mouse cursor. Yes, there is a differen e to 60hz TFTs.
I just want to thank you for all your computing work over the years, you are a true visionary.  I got involved in Linux in 1997 and have seen it grow exponentially.  I believe you should be awarded a Nobel prize for science and hopefully that day will come for you.  Your contribution to society cannot be measured.
If I could afford one Id get a PIXEL ! :-D
Going to get a MacBook Pro Retina next friday... I think I'll enjoy the display after the first 8 hours of coding, writing and surfing on the net =) 
Of course I would choose the Google Pixel but... the MBP will be a great second choice!
right below this is a story about you working on windows 9.  heh.
Is it April fools day already?
I made my boss buy 30" 2560 res monitor instead of 2x24" 1080p.

After a week, he understood why I recommend it. Working with data, you need the area and the pixels. You cant simply cram or zoom smaller, as it wont be crisp enough
I think the banalization of cheap 1080p screens as computer display went the wrong direction, because movies might look good on 16:9 screen, but more vertical space is always a better option for computer displays... so 16:10 or 4:3 or even 3:2 in this case is a better proportion for most poeople in general.
Still waiting for an afordable OLED computer display...
I've bemoaned the proliferation of 16:9 aspect ratio panels for a while, with 720 or 1080 vertical resolution. If all I watched were HD movies, that would be fine, but for pretty much everything else I liken it to trying to look at my screen through a mail slot. It may have cut production costs (same panels for TVs and monitors), but it made no sense to me, especially when laptop vendors targeting "enterprise productivity" users have been selling them without any attention to this detail.

So it's good to see some higher res and more productivity/photography friendly alternates emerge.
+Linus Torvalds would you say the the same line of thought applies to phones: 720p phones vs 1080p? Also thanks for sharing your thoughts
+Vinod Kutty I don't mind the 16:9 screens because I can have to large xterms side by side. (With the font big enough to see due to crappy eyesight.)
For video I think 16:9 is still better. In real life you spend much more time looking 360° horizontally then you do looking at the boring sky or boring ground. And frankly, I'm way too poor to afford a GPU good enough to support games at a pixel-esque resolution. So I can live with 1080p for now. 
As someone who has spent months looking at code and HTML files, I could appreciate the assistance on eye strain. There for a while, I thought I had code burnt into my eyes and wore sunglasses quite frequently when I wasn't by a computer. 
The resolution or the screen DPI is not the only thing to look at.

I have a 15" laptop with a 1080p screen. I had to grow the font size, because it's just way too small otherwise. I can't see any use to a bigger resolution, as the limiting factor here is my own vision. I'd take a large resolution on a larger screen maybe, like a 30" display.
+Linus Torvalds The main reason LARGE high-dpi displays aren't commonplace is because the reject rates would likely be astronomical.

I used to work for a company that sold scientific vacuum equipment such as vacuum chambers and pumps to semiconductor industries. From my understanding gained there, a LARGE (I.e. 15+ in) HDPI display requires quite a large, expensive vacuum chamber to produce in any reasonably sized batch. The smaller the pixels need to be, the higher the chance of defects occurring through process contamination, necessitating higher vacuum levels (e.g. 1x10^10 Torr or even ^12); and the larger the chamber, the longer it takes to pump down to the necessary levels for deposition. So manufacturers are making tradeoffs between economies of scale and pixel density. (Well, some are just plain greedy too. ;) )

For a more detailed look at the process, visit
+Maxime Poulin Have you taken the test I pointed to?  If your visus is really just 0.3, and you are otherwise healthy, you should consult your doctor.

About font sizes: the X server can know about screen resolution and dpi settings, so when you select a 10pt (pica point) font, it will be 10pt, regardless if it's a Chromebook Pixel or a Molebook 640x480 screen.

Actually, the X server model is not perfect.  It allows to select the "right" font size so that the physical size is correct.  But the viewing distance also matters.  If I use my living room TV as monitor, I'm at 4m distance.  It should therefore render fonts bigger than the PC monitor, which is at 60cm distance.  And that one should render the fonts bigger than the laptop, which is at 40cm and even worse the phone, which is used at 25cm viewing distance.

The solution for the X server is to set fake dimensions, so the TV screen is about the same "size" as the phone screen.
Around 12-13 years ago a colleague that I was working with said that he sent you an email... I must say that I laughed very hard but my jaw  dropped when I saw that you actually replied back !

It still makes me chuckle to this day that I never got the chance to say +Linus Torvalds thank you for all the fish and happiness that linux has given me. All the best !
+Linus Torvalds your opinion for a student who is going into digital arts program at university next year.   Chromebook Pixel or latest MacBook Pro (13 inch) or ???

Will likely install Linux alongside whatever OS is on either machine.  Thanks for your input.
+Bernd Paysan

Just took your test, I can barely see the patterns. Once I step back at my correct sitting position I can't see them at all, plain color (except the unreadable text, even at 10cm of the screen (I'm usually at like 50cm of my screen because I took that bad habit over time).

My last eye exam is from a month ago, my vision is fine.

I do however notice the bad resolution on 720p laptops. I can see the pixel grid on those, it's horrible. But with 1080p I don't, unless I get really close to the screen.

nvidia report these:
Dimensions: 1920x1080 pixels (341x190 milimeters)
Resolution: 143x144 dots per inch
+Maxime Poulin Not sure what you are telling me.  If you can't read "you can read this" at 10cm distance, you would have a visus below 0.2, if things disappear only at 50cm, you would have one of 0.8 (just a bit below average).  You should really figure out where exactly the lines disappear and it becomes plain flat color.

I can read this text up to at about the point where the lines vanishes, which in your case (143dpi) would be at about 1m distance, since I have an visus of 1.6, and quite a number of geeks I know have a similar visus (though certainly not all).

Since you see the pixel grid of 720p laptops, you are probably closer to 0.8 than 0.2, which is not quite good as average, but not bad enough to worry doctors.  I'm sure you would be worried if your IQ was just 80 - these things seem to be related (though it's a weird relation, as autists can have a visus of up to 2.8 - but some of them, the savants, do also have special talents, which certainly would rate them at an IQ of 280, if they had them not in just one field).
+Bernd Paysan I just meant the text is hard to read even really close to the screen. I can read the text at about 70cm of the screen, where the pattern on the right starts to be visible. That text is just not comfortable to read, even close, even zoomed.

I don't think there's a problem with my vision or anything, I just find it uncomfortable reading small text on a laptop screen.

Here's a screenshot for an idea of my ideal font size. Easy to read at any angle, well spaced. And I code everyday with a font really slightly smaller than this.

Anyway, the conclusion to this is probably that people like different font sizes for their work, and Linus seems to happen to like to display lots of text on his screen which requires more pixels to keep clean text.
+Maxime Poulin Ok, 70cm is a visus at around 1, so your vision isn't a problem.  People like indeed different font-sizes, and you can't have small fonts without high res.
Well not every body is computer savvy & I would bet $1,000 that if I was standing in front of you, you wouldn't say I was stupid as f""k. You look pretty young too. I'm 61. Care to take that challenge?
...I hope this is an early April fools joke.
If you think reasonable people need to deal with this kind of nonsense issue you'd have to be 'stupid as f*ck'
I see 3 pictures not 2? 2nd looks best for me, 3rd is readable but the lines are too thin for my tastes. 
Those of you saying "reasonable people don't need to deal with this kind of nonsense issue" (+Geoff Ramsay) or "Not everybody is computer savvy" (+Gary Breitbarth) or any kind of variation of "The average user doesn't see a difference" - you're part of the problem. Companies have the technology for higher pixel density screens - and they look amazing. Hell, my phone's 4" screen is running a 1280x720 resolution. 1080p on a 15" laptop screen (or god forbid the 27" IPS panel HP monitor I saw at the store yesterday) is no longer acceptable. The only reason it's still a thing is because the "average user" hears "1080p" and thinks "oooooh, that's HD! It must be a great picture!"

You don't have to be tech savvy to see that one screen looks better than the other. These days 1080p and HD are pure marketing buzz - that's it. If you think it's "good enough", you're falling for it. Outdated technology is intentionally being milked for everything they can get out of it, and it's all because they think you're too dumb to notice.

Do you like being treated as if you're dumb and don't know any better? I sure don't.
Bought a $300 Korean 2560x1440 monitor on eBay with an LG panel. No dead pixels. No backlight bleed.

It made games look good. It made multitasking easy. Fonts got smaller so I just placed my monitor closer to me, which made the pixels the same size in perception, but I can now see more on the sides, top, and bottom. 
Back on my PC instead of my phone. still 3 pictures and the 2nd one is by far the best looking. Which is supposed to look best?
Tell this to the fools at System76! You would think computers made specifically for Linux users would have decent hardware! They make you pay extra and only get 1080p. That new Chromebook is looking better and better!
OMG. How did I even manage to read the text on those pesky 15" 768px screens back in the days? 
My Amiga was really cool, I could use overscan to get 704 pixels wide (instead of the standard 640) and on a long-persistence monitor I could get almost 1000 addressable pixels vertically by screwing around with interlace. In 1985.
+Linus Torvalds .
1. The test that you did is slightly flawed because at the end of the day you didn't take the MTF of the human eye into account. For most people over 40 that may be the limiting factor. 
2. For non-text assets this gets even trickier. Let us say, you are watching a 1024x768 image on a 1024x768 display vs 2048x1536 display. For simplicity assume they have the same screen size. The image will look better on a 1024x768 display because the pixel-doubling that most hardware does (I am pretty sure that's what happening in iPads and am guessing what happens in Chrome pixel), produces an image quality lower than a lower resolution screen. 
I've been saying this for years. I had 1600x1200 back in the 90s. In 2007 I bought a 15.4" Dell laptop and paid an extra $100 for the "hi-res" 1680x1050 screen. It wasn't until this past year that I was able finally replace that laptop without losing vertical pixels without having to buy an overpriced "gamer" laptop. What the heck happened? It used to be that manufacturers listed screen resolutions. Now you have to dig around to find it. Sometimes they don't even bother giving you a meaningless alphabelt soup name like "WXGA" anymore. I'm 45 but I still want the most pixels I can get. I can always make things bigger if I need to.
+Amit Agrawal
Assuming the 1024x768 image is scaled correctly (1 pixel mapped to 2x2 pixels, without any added blurry filtering), it would look better on the higher-resolution display, as the subpixel grid would be less noticeable.
+Madisson Carlton
Let me see if I can find some reference material for you. 
+Simo Melenius
Even though I find faults with hi-density screens, if your primary application has to deal with looking at text, you really should give the hires stuff a look. It is beautiful and much less strain on the eye. 
wow , i'm a dinosaure , anyone remember 25x80 amber or green ? 
+Tim Locke  what you mean by "my first one" ? i cant really remember if it was my trs80 or timex sinclair , yes believe it or not timex did computers
Yester-era (2005/2006) 14" 1400x1050 laptop certainly did wipe floor with another of that era 1280x800 15"; even nowadays' machines have difficulties to come close.
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but my Mutt text-mode email browser has no trouble with 50 emails on a 768 laptop screen in a terminal with a decent font. I happen to find white with black background quite a bit easier to read.

Yes, resolution matters, but a 200DPI screen is going to be 8.5 inches tall at 1700 pixels (14" or so if you make it the size of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper)
Yeah well my intel core i5 beatsaudio HP CoolSense with temperature control true Vision with web cam with 18' screen has no trouble with all that. I just have problems with jerks & assholes like Linus Torvalds who think they know it all & like to poke fun at us people who don't comprehend every aspect of what a computer can do. I've only had mine for a few months & Linus has the nerve to call me a dumb fuck. I would really like to meet this guy,& not to talk about computers.
Will need to see this on a Pixel to really know how good/bad it is.
I'm dyslexic and thus don't gain any benefit from tiny fonts.
Higher resolution isn't only for tiny fonts, its to make larger items sharper. Doesn't matter if the letters are in the right order, it just looks a whole lot better ;)
Linus, you put too much attention of other people opinions.
+Shad Hass Those fonts are not really sharper, since the pixel boundaries on a TFT are sharp anyway. There are just more pixels to make curves more beautiful. I don't think anyone says, that it doesn't look better, but if I want some real benefit, I need to make the font smaller, and not all people want that.
Ed Dich
+Linus Torvalds why not put both shots on a single picture? Everyone knows you are very experienced in merging ;-)
Ed Dich
Gimp maybe, but the commandline should have worked for Linus, too ;-) Like:
montage Screenshot-67.png Screenshot-1080.png -geometry +2+2 s.png
I hate that the pricetag is so high and the fact that it isn't available in Sweden yet. I would love to use a Pixel with a Linux distro in my studies. Hopefully companies will stop pushing everything in NA first and do world wide launch on the same date instead... or atleast close to it. The price aspect might seem rediculous to many but Swedes pay hell of a lot more for Google hardware than Americans do. The Galaxy Nexus was twice the price in Sweden compared to America.
+Jonas Werme Ah the price Swedes pay for universal healthcare and free education ;D You can drive to Germany to buy cider/beer and the pixel ;D get a McRib from McDonalds in Germany while you're at it. 
de tawn
As a DEV, higher DPI is important because it gives you more logical screen real-estate. The more code I can have on a screen at once, the better. Beyond that it's for-pretty.
Square pixler vs-hexagonal, which are natural for the brain and gives good quality, hard to explain, but the future will show when the industry begins to produce screens with hexagonal.

+Linus Torvalds The barely contained urge to say "why you need..." and opting for the methodical choice to say "why you want..."?

Then I'll say it for you: "You need higher/reasonable resolution screens for reading.".

Well, atleast I do. And eventually they will too.
The screen of my device has broken due to fall into the hardest surface. 
Add a comment...